Right there on Page 16 is a provision making individual private medical insurance illegal.Obama has repeatedly said that if people like their current coverage they can keep it, but he's also on record with other Dems of wanting to do away with private insurance altogether. This bill sounds like the on-ramp to that highway, meaning there's a giant flim-flam taking place.
While conservatives stand along the wall liberal proponents are putting on a tug at the heart strings campaign by bringing people to Washington who've apparently been on the receiving end of Mr. Potter-like treatment from faceless private insurance monoliths:
"And this is my message to everyone: The insurance companies are not going to decide who is going to live and who is going to die," Sarkisyan saidMost Americans (except Dick Cheney, who is the source of all evil in the universe) can generate empathy for such predicaments based on their own experiences or those of family/friends but the alternative is to let the government decide who lives or dies. Why is the left, who railed on Cheney's dangerous power for eight years, not deathly afraid of such a scenario? Make no mistake the government, which will depend on tax increases to fund such a system, will at some point use a faceless bureaucrat to decide who is 'viable' based on costs. Fail the viable test and it's Soylent Green time.
If Republicans can't make at least a similar coherent vocal stand to this IBD reporter...
Washington does not have the constitutional or moral authority to outlaw private markets in which parties voluntarily participate. It shouldn't be killing business opportunities, or limiting choices, or legislating major changes in Americans' lives....then they deserve little support going forward, especially when the Blue Dogs are already out there barking. Most people simply want reform, not a takeover, but if the right doesn't speak out it'll be the moderate Dems who end up saving the day. Who knows, maybe that's part of Axelrod's master plan here, along with shaking the trees enough to get the insurance companies to bend. But whatever the case, the GOP needs to position itself properly on this issue based on core values or risk a rocky road ahead.
5 comments:
This just cannot pass. Look at all the jobs that will be lost, all the insurance company employees. Look at the damage to our own ability to get medical treatment.
I heard one of Obama's minions say "if you have insurance and go into an ER you get the best treatment available, if you don't have insurance and go to an ER you get inferior care".
That's a lie. My husband is an ER physician, Chief of Staff of the local hospital, and I can tell you -- everybody who enters that ER gets the same treatment. It makes no difference. Whatever their medical program Everybody gets treated the same. The only difference is the hospital has to eat the costs.
Deborah F. Hamilton
Right Truth
http://www.righttruth.typepad.com
They will hurl around whatever rhetoric they think is necessary to achieve the goal. That speaks to the political potential of this move, as does the speed at which Obama is trying to rush this along.
"Supply and Demand"
It's my hope Mr. President that you read this. You're right! We have to break away from status quo.
The bigger issue with the Health Care System is not being addressed, there for any solution which does not address the root problem will only create new challenges or make the existing likely worst or at best somewhat better.
The root of the solution has to make accountability incredibly important.
With little to no exception, EVERYONE should be required to acquire health insurance on their own instead of through private and public institutions as is done today which will put accountability squarely on the shoulders of where the responsibility of the root problem and more effectively address the following problems and drive more effective solutions.
Here are some problems and benefits.
* Families will be more responsible for child development of a life style for a better quality of life.
* The medical system would be forced to provide a higher quality of health care at more affordable cost
* The medical system would be able provide higher quality care when not overwhelmed by the cause and effects of poor life styles.
* Group insurance could no longer penalize in individuals who choose a life style that does not require higher level of need or use of the health care system.
* Reduce government cost which are past on to the tax payer.
* Force the systems that provide food services to provide more healthier choices which will also drive down these costs through making healthier choices no longer niche-market because of demand.
The list could go on and on... but this is a start for hopefully meaniful discussions which can work towards the best solution.
Bob
Even if we assume that Bob’s points have merit, will someone please explain to me the Constitutional basis for the federal government assuming the power of forcing everyone to acquire health insurance? We may disagree about such issues as the overall quality of health care in our country, and we can argue over several pints of mead about such things as seriously flawed statistics Congress is using to create an aura of crisis. We cannot argue, however, about the federal government’s right to force the American people to enroll in a federal health care insurance plan. There is NO Constitutional basis for this program.
But even if we assume there is merit to this argument, this is one of those issues covered under the Tenth Amendment: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
First off, I strongly agree with Mustang as to the notion of the govt forcing people to purchase health insurance under the threat of penalty. Outrageous. And no, requiring auto insurance isn't exactly the same. People can always bike to work.
As to Bob's points, this stands out to me:
Force the systems that provide food services to provide more healthier choices which will also drive down these costs through making healthier choices no longer niche-market because of demand.
There's that word 'force' again. Better food choices are fine so long as this incentive stays in the private sector. Allowing bureaucrats, or worse yet czars, to make choices for us is a dangerous path. It's every bit as much an example of Franklin's liberty for security warning as it was with Bush's terrorism measures--and probably worse.
Post a Comment